Appeal No. 98-1036
Application 08/540,193
relating to the means for extending the baseboard support form
or support form system around inside and outside corners of a
wall (see pages 3, 4 and 8 in the answer).
The dispositive issue with regard to enablement is
whether the appellant's disclosure, considering the level of
ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the appellant's
application, would have enabled a person of such skill to make
and use the appellant's invention without undue
experimentation. In re Strahilevitz, 668 F.2d 1229, 1232, 212
USPQ 561, 563-64 (CCPA 1982). In calling into question the
enablement of the appellant's disclosure, the examiner has the
initial burden of advancing acceptable reasoning inconsistent
with enablement. Id.
In the present case, the appellant's specification (see
pages 6 and 7) indicates that the claim limitations in
question read on elements 40, 50, 70 and 71. The examiner has
not cogently explained, nor is it apparent, why the
appellant's rather straightforward disclosure of these
elements would not have enabled a person having ordinary skill
in the art to make and use a baseboard support form or support
form system including same. Thus, the examiner has failed to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007